Thought Provoker - Ticket to Heaven?

Originally Posted by Surio

Well, if it's not man, and it's not God, and it's not some other choice, then absolute morality doesn't exist, and anyone can do anything and not be evil.

A false dichotomy.

Morality need not be absolute to exist or be binding.

Nope. God can not do evil, because God is good. Therefore, if God does something, chances are that it's good.

That's messing with definitions.

One decides if God is good or not by looking at his actions and deciding what that tells you about him.

You are re-defining "good" to mean "What God does", which is not a definition that anyone else uses.

Well, the people did deserve to die. God just let Israel carry out the judgment.

Even the children? Again: Modern law holds that children are not accountable for their actions, do you not agree with that?

Time to answer mah buddy John.

\
Heh

That deep down, you know He exists, even though your so-called rational reasoning convinces you otherwise.

Not at all. I do not think he exists in any way, shape, or form. I believe in him as much as I believe in dragons, vampires and unicorns.

..The double negative makes my brain hurt.
Uhm, you'd go to hell if you did not believe in Him.

But if Hell is simply because you hate him, then how could I go there, because I don't. At least, not yet. I'd have to be in hell before I'd know he existed, so I could no hate him until after punishment had started.

How so?

Why should the character of the target alter the heinousness of the crime? Is more harm somehow done if a social worker is targeted over a banker? Does the world's suffering increase drastically more when a girl is killed versus a man?

So you hold that He would still be just?

Nope. Hell is, by definition, completely and totally unjust.
Heaven is also completely and totally unjust, albeit skewed the other way.
Original sin is innately unjust.
Life itself is innately unjust, and he created that, apparently.

Oh, I've heard this one before, and I'll admit that it's pretty much up for debate amongst Christians, but here's my take.
Well, I wouldn't say I murdered them if I said yes, but I don't think I'd say yes anyway.
1) Lie, have them probably search your house anyway, maybe find the Jews, kill them.
2) Tell the truth, have the Jews killed.
3) Say nothing, having the Nazis suspect you, and probably kill you and the Jews.
4) Try to do something stupid like kill the Nazi.
Now, motive is also important. A righteous act can sometimes be sullied by a wicked motive.
A lie because of a genuine love of the Jew.. I would hold that it is sin, but I wouldn't blame someone for doing it. In Exodus, God praised the women who lied to the Egyptians about having sons, for example. Saying yes isn't sin, exactly, unless it's done out of a desire to save yourself, which I would hold is sin. Now I wouldn't think saving the Jew would be more important than dishonoring God, so saying nothing would be a good option. So I would say it would be okay to lie.

I'd say it's mandatory.

Saying "Yes" is the same as murdering the Jews, saying nothing is murdering them and committing suicide, attacking the Nazi is committing more murder and suicide.

Also:

I don't think any atheist here would dispute that if the God of the Bible existed, they'd go to hell.

Depends: What criteria is he using to judge?

Your interpretation of God would certainly send me to hell without a second thought. However, the Catholic interpretation seems more inclined to let virtuous people into heaven just for being good (though this is relatively recent). The Anglican one seems to be similar there.

I fear posting in this thread, since I know that I'll probably cause some hate towards me for stating my opinion of Christianity, and religion in general. But that hasn't stopped me from saying what I believe before, so here I come.

And if you're highly religious, I ask for your forgiveness from this moment, since I'm not going to ask it once you start flaming me. I'll try not to offend anyone, but I can't guarantee it, so I also ask for forgiveness in this aspect.

Okay, here I go.


Why should I believe what some random people that I know nothing about wrote thousands of years ago? After all, according to your teachings, humans are innately evil (at least that is what you're hinting with your posts). What guarantees me that the original authors were honest? You can claim that they were "inspired by God" but I wasn't there to see it, I didn't know the people involved. For all I know, the whole book could be a very elaborate fairy tale.

And even if the original authors were inspired by God, how do I know that it wasn't modified by people afterwards? After all, back in the day not very many people were educated and knew how to read. It would be relatively simple to modify what the original writers had put in the bible in order to benefit themselves. And who were the ones who knew how to read, I ask? The rulers and the wisemen. How can I be sure that the bible wasn't modified in order to keep the masses in control, and make them easier to rule them?

These are the main points that I have against the bible. The fact is, I know absolutely nothing that assures me of what is stated there. Can God really punish me for being cautious? Can God really expect me to mindlessly follow what some random book says I should do without questioning its validity? Can God really expect me to believe what the bible says when, as you are stating, humans are innately evil and prone to sin?


This causes me to question many of the ideas that are taught by the bible. "You have to believe in God in order to be saved" sounds as nothing more than a cheap attempt at keeping the peoples in control and easier to exploit. I'm sorry, but that is just a story that I won't swallow.

One of the greatest paradoxes of Christianity is essentially the question you have posted before us: how can an all loving God condemn someone to an eternity of suffering?

The ultimate (and theologically correct) answer is: God never condemns anyone, we pick our destiny and God gives us the option that is best for us.

This first must be supported by the belief that hell is not a place of punishment, but rather of mercy. Consider a person who is so atheistic, so atheistic in fact that if he were to actually see God, he would spit in his face and say "you do not exist". Now, what if this person were to be in Heaven?

Heaven, by definition, is eternal bliss with God. But for that agnostic, wouldn't such a place be worse than a place where God is not? Being in heaven would in fact be hell for him. Conversely, hell, a place not necessarily of fire and brimstone but of merely an absence of God, hell would be so much more preferable to heaven.

So, essentially, an eternity in hell is not given, but chosen. If a person were to deny God and not want to be a part of his love, then God would give him the grace to be as far away from that which causes him pain as possible; hell. Conversely, if a person were so troubled by the world that he did many an evil action, yet still wanted to and desired a love for God, ultimately if his motivations were true, God would see this and allow that person to eventually work his way into heaven.

I can go in-depth on this further, PM me if you want more info.

Originally Posted by Surio

*Ridiculously long post*

"You're all evil, but I'm good & pure because my god cleansed me."

Come on, man. ;/

Originally Posted by fratey

"You're all evil, but I'm good & pure because my god cleansed me."

Come on, man. ;/

By no means. I'm just as evil as you are, but I've come to know salvation in Christ Jesus, and I wish the same unto others. I will, however, defend biblical beliefs, no matter how controversial or unlikeable they are.

Originally Posted by John

A false dichotomy.

Morality need not be absolute to exist or be binding.


That's messing with definitions.

Fair enough. In what way can a relative morality be binding?

One decides if God is good or not by looking at his actions and deciding what that tells you about him.

You are re-defining "good" to mean "What God does", which is not a definition that anyone else uses.

Then good isn't absolute. Good is relative, and has no standard, therefore one could say that if Hitler believed he was doing good, then he was. Unless some people are better than others, making their opinions on good or evil count for more. But maybe I'm missing something.
Please explain how it can be both relative and binding.

Even the children? Again: Modern law holds that children are not accountable for their actions, do you not agree with that?

I would hold less guilt to the children, but the wage of sin is still death.
Also, let the record show that modern law is man-made, and therefore totally fallible.

Not at all. I do not think he exists in any way, shape, or form. I believe in him as much as I believe in dragons, vampires and unicorns.

I would hold that you do believe in God on a spiritual level, but I'll let this one go, seeing as it's just a doctrine. Nothing to waste time on.

But if Hell is simply because you hate him, then how could I go there, because I don't. At least, not yet. I'd have to be in hell before I'd know he existed, so I could no hate him until after punishment had started.

Well, hell isn't simply because you hate Him. You go there because you sin, but once or there, we'd both agree that you'd hate Him, (Atleast I would think so) and hating Him is a sin, so you'd be, in a sense, sinning forever.

Why should the character of the target alter the heinousness of the crime? Is more harm somehow done if a social worker is targeted over a banker? Does the world's suffering increase drastically more when a girl is killed versus a man?

Do you believe that killing a man is always evil and equally evil?

Nope. Hell is, by definition, completely and totally unjust.
Heaven is also completely and totally unjust, albeit skewed the other way.
Original sin is innately unjust.
Life itself is innately unjust, and he created that, apparently.

Well, if we're talking about the biblical view of Hell, we should look at the Biblical definition, which is a place where sinners go because they deserve it.
A sinner being allowed into heaven is also unjust, but through the sacrifice of Christ, it becomes just, as the sinner is now 'legally' innocent.

I'd say it's mandatory.

Saying "Yes" is the same as murdering the Jews, saying nothing is murdering them and committing suicide, attacking the Nazi is committing more murder and suicide.

I would think that unless you actually killed someone, or ordered the man dead, it wouldn't be murder. They may have died because of a decision you made, but you neither commanded them dead, or desired them dead, or killed them. You just allowed it to happen that you may glorify God by not lying. Even then, I said I wouldn't really hold it against someone if they just lied to them.

Depends: What criteria is he using to judge?

The wage of sin is death. (Death including hell.)

Your interpretation of God would certainly send me to hell without a second thought. However, the Catholic interpretation seems more inclined to let virtuous people into heaven just for being good (though this is relatively recent). The Anglican one seems to be similar there.

Well, I wouldn't use modern Christianity as an example, as it's been influenced heavily by humanism, and isn't pure Christianity. Look at it historically, from the the first century until about maybe 200 years ago, and you'd find that most Christian sects and denominations would hold that those who deny Christ would go to hell.

Originally Posted by Surio

By no means. I'm just as evil as you are, but I've come to know salvation in Christ Jesus, and I wish the same unto others. I will, however, defend biblical beliefs, no matter how controversial or unlikeable they are.

I suppose you think of as negatively of wearing mixed fibers as homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Surio

I would think that unless you actually killed someone, or ordered the man dead, it wouldn't be murder. They may have died because of a decision you made, but you neither commanded them dead, or desired them dead, or killed them. You just allowed it to happen that you may glorify God by not lying. Even then, I said I wouldn't really hold it against someone if they just lied to them.

so even if lying could save a life or hundreds of lives it is still sin and should be avoided?

even if lying could save thousands of lives, not lying would glorify God?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- (Epicurus)

Originally Posted by wolfen

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- (Epicurus)

We're talking about tickets to heaven here, wolfen. ;3

Yes, but Surio was discussing how humans were sinful, and I was trying to bring up whether or not God himself may be sinful.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Yes, but Surio was discussing how humans were sinful, and I was trying to bring up whether or not God himself may be sinful.

Mmm, that's a good point. Now I've been told that humans get their morals from god, but humans are also inherantly evil. Does that mean that god is also inherantly evil? After all, he supposedly made us to be like him.

Originally Posted by Pelagias

Mmm, that's a good point. Now I've been told that humans get their morals from god, but humans are also inherantly evil. Does that mean that god is also inherantly evil? After all, he supposedly made us to be like him.

We get a very general morality from God (Most people consider murder wrong, for example.) Adam had God's morality, yes, but sin corrupted it, as it does all things. This made man a corrupt image of God, and no longer reflecting Him. So no, God is not inherently evil.

Originally Posted by fratey

I suppose you think of as negatively of wearing mixed fibers as homosexuality.

That question was worded a little weirdly.. Or maybe my brain hurts too much from the math homework.
If you're asking me if I believe that homosexuality is a sin, then yes, I do.

Also, in regard to Pelagius' quote.
God is able, but has allowed it to enter. He will destroy evil on Judgment day, though, so no worries. Or, a lot of worries. Depends on which side of the line you're standing on, I guess. This side's got plenty of room.

Originally Posted by Surio

The problem here would be that, you still broke the Law, and Justice must be done.

If all sin is infinitely bad and eternity in hell is the" justice" that's like saying that child rapists and candy theives should all be locked up for life.

Originally Posted by Surio

Also, in regard to Pelagius' quote.
God is able, but has allowed it to enter. He will destroy evil on Judgment day, though, so no worries. Or, a lot of worries. Depends on which side of the line you're standing on, I guess. This side's got plenty of room.

then that would make God able, but unwilling, and therefore malevolent, according to Epicurus.

also, you ignored my post. If lying could save a thousand lives, would lying still be considered a sin? And would it glorify God to be honest?

Originally Posted by et cetera.

then that would make God able, but unwilling, and therefore malevolent, according to Epicurus.

also, you ignored my post. If lying could save a thousand lives, would lying still be considered a sin? And would it glorify God to be honest?

I would say yes, but it would be a more.. acceptable to lie for such a reason.
I apologize, but I'm not very well educated in this area.

Oh, then Epicurus would be wrong.

Originally Posted by Margaret

If all sin is infinitely bad and eternity in hell is the" justice" that's like saying that child rapists and candy thieves should all be locked up for life.

Child rapists should be locked up for life. Candy stealing is more acceptable in man's standards, but it is just as much an insult to God as child rape, for it is sin.

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

I would say yes, but it would be a more.. acceptable to lie for such a reason.
I apologize, but I'm not very well educated in this area.

I could not worship a God who is more glorified by a thousand deaths caused by one honest man, than by a thousand lives saved by one lie.

Oh, then Epicurus would be wrong.

Benevolent people do not allow evil when they have the capability to stop it, especially when it comes at no loss to themselves. An omnipotent God could snap his fingers and rid the world of evil, and we would all be happy and free.

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

That question was worded a little weirdly.. Or maybe my brain hurts too much from the math homework.
If you're asking me if I believe that homosexuality is a sin, then yes, I do.

Do you think homosexuality is as bad as wearing clothing with mixed fibers?

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

Fair enough. In what way can a relative morality be binding?

All morality is relative. Even morality from God would be just as relative and arbitrary as any morality we come up with.

So the answer is simple enough: It's just as binding as divinely-inspired morality.

Then good isn't absolute. Good is relative, and has no standard, therefore one could say that if Hitler believed he was doing good, then he was. Unless some people are better than others, making their opinions on good or evil count for more. But maybe I'm missing something.
Please explain how it can be both relative and binding.

By having certain values that the majority agree are the ones we want and making those law.

Same way morality has been for the past 6 000 years.

I would hold less guilt to the children, but the wage of sin is still death.
Also, let the record show that modern law is man-made, and therefore totally fallible.

Then why murder the children?


Oh, and as for hating God, I'd hate your version of God, yes, but if, say, the Gnostics turned out to be correct there'd be no hate from me.

Do you believe that killing a man is always evil and equally evil?

No, but the factors that play into when killing is allowed are complex.

The basic question is this: Does killing this person cause more good than harm? If I, somehow, was alive in 1930s Germany and knew, indisputably, what Hitler would do, and also knew, indisputably, that killing him would stop it all but nothing else would, then it would be the moral thing to kill him.

However, if, somehow, it was revealed that Hitler was still alive today but had completely retired and would never do anything evil ever again, then no one would be justified in killing him.

The killing of that Mafia Don would, if anything, lead to more deaths than it prevented when the mob begins in-fighting and doing retaliatory strikes, making it less moral than killing the innocent girl.

Well, if we're talking about the biblical view of Hell, we should look at the Biblical definition, which is a place where sinners go because they deserve it.
A sinner being allowed into heaven is also unjust, but through the sacrifice of Christ, it becomes just, as the sinner is now 'legally' innocent.

That's not how justice works, though.

An infinite period of torture is unjust. Innately so, since it is, by definition, completely out of proportion to any harm that could have been caused.

In addition, it ignores 6 of the 7 purposes of Justice.

Same, of course, with an infinite reward. That may be benevolent, but it can never be Just.

I would think that unless you actually killed someone, or ordered the man dead, it wouldn't be murder. They may have died because of a decision you made, but you neither commanded them dead, or desired them dead, or killed them. You just allowed it to happen that you may glorify God by not lying. Even then, I said I wouldn't really hold it against someone if they just lied to them.

Allowing a murder that you could have prevented to happen makes you just as guilty as those who committed the murder.

You had a chance to reduce the harm in the world, but your actions intentionally increased it. That's all there is to it.

To be honest, any God that would prefer you committing/allowing murder (in this case the two are indistinguishable) over you lying has no morality.

Originally Posted by John

All morality is relative. Even morality from God would be just as relative and arbitrary as any morality we come up with.

Well, if the morality was from God, and He decided to add it as an absolute to the universe He created, then no, in our universe, it wouldn't be relative.

So the answer is simple enough: It's just as binding as divinely-inspired morality.

Relative morality is much less binding. Actually, the only binding relative morality is if the majority thinks it's right, then the minority is wrong.

By having certain values that the majority agree are the ones we want and making those law.

Same way morality has been for the past 6 000 years.

So the majority is allowed to impose its beliefs on the minority?

Then why murder the children?

Murder is only if it's sin. If the question is why kill the children? Well, they're still sinners, are they not?

Oh, and as for hating God, I'd hate your version of God, yes, but if, say, the Gnostics turned out to be correct there'd be no hate from me.

Don't the Gnostics believe that you have to come to some sort of understanding of God to be saved? Would that then make it impossible for those with mental illnesses to be saved? You'd love that god, really?

No, but the factors that play into when killing is allowed are complex.

The basic question is this: Does killing this person cause more good than harm? If I, somehow, was alive in 1930s Germany and knew, indisputably, what Hitler would do, and also knew, indisputably, that killing him would stop it all but nothing else would, then it would be the moral thing to kill him.

However, if, somehow, it was revealed that Hitler was still alive today but had completely retired and would never do anything evil ever again, then no one would be justified in killing him.

The killing of that Mafia Don would, if anything, lead to more deaths than it prevented when the mob begins in-fighting and doing retaliatory strikes, making it less moral than killing the innocent girl.

You're right about the killing of the Mafia Don. My bad.
So it's all utilitarian, in the end?

That's not how justice works, though.

An infinite period of torture is unjust. Innately so, since it is, by definition, completely out of proportion to any harm that could have been caused.

So an infinitely evil can not be punished by an infinite punishment and be just?

In addition, it ignores 6 of the 7 purposes of Justice.

According to who are these the purposes of Justice?

Same, of course, with an infinite reward. That may be benevolent, but it can never be Just.

Well, Christ's Holiness and goodness would be imputed into the sinner, as well having the sinner cleansed. That would, legally, make the man worthy to enter.

Allowing a murder that you could have prevented to happen makes you just as guilty as those who committed the murder.

So, you sin, so that one person who deserves to die won't kill another person who deserves to die? I don't think saving the life someone who is evil is enough to insult God.

You had a chance to reduce the harm in the world, but your actions intentionally increased it. That's all there is to it.

But utilitarianism isn't the goal here.

To be honest, any God that would prefer you committing/allowing murder (in this case the two are indistinguishable) over you lying has no morality.

What's the standard of morality?

Originally Posted by et cetera.

I could not worship a God who is more glorified by a thousand deaths caused by one honest man, than by a thousand lives saved by one lie.

First, whether or not you could worship Him has nothing to do with anything. "I don't agree, therefore it's wrong" isn't a very compelling argument.
Also, God can be glorified by the lie, technically. God would be glorified by your love of the people you saved, though insulted by the lie.

Benevolent people do not allow evil when they have the capability to stop it, especially when it comes at no loss to themselves. An omnipotent God could snap his fingers and rid the world of evil, and we would all be happy and free.

God's already dealt with evil, so I don't know why you're complaining. He's just letting the world progress as His children, who He has chosen since before the creation of the universe, come to Him.

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

Murder is only if it's sin. If the question is why kill the children? Well, they're still sinners, are they not?

At least the Muslims don't think BABIES ARE ****ING EVIL AND DESERVING OF DEATH.
And Surio, you're one to talk. If BABIES are automatically sinful and deserving of death, what makes you think YOUR god would be any better when it comes to the mentally ill?

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

So an infinitely evil can not be punished by an infinite punishment and be just?

A toddler playfully steals a cigar from God. He will not burn in hell for all eternity. *high five*